Hi: Unaware of this list, I've been doing my own private plotting, and would like to run my thoughts past you. (This comes with the standard Canadian Disclaimer about not stepping on feet, embarrassment at being egotistical enough to make suggestions, etc., etc., etc) I've been proofreading and mentoring at DP-INT and -EU for 16 months or so, and have shared many of the fears and uncertainties about the future of Public Domain. It is interesting and frightening to see how one (relatively) small country can unilaterally change Copyright, then cajole their 'friends' until a global result is achieved, despite the opposition of most. (I note parentherically that most of the world is Life+50.) I have, consequently, incorporated Distributed Proofreaders of Canada as a for profit concern; I also own dp50.net. (Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.) I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power. Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Where I, personally, want to be challenging is by claiming, (as our charter does), rights of use for any material- globally- that is currently in the Public Domain in Canada. (As, for example, an individual or corporation may claim mineral rights without doing any work on them for up to 15 years.) Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto: THE BOOK STOPS HERE Cheers, Vasa (Michael Lockey)
Hello Vasa, welcome. I'm a newcomer as well. I see PG Canada both as a useful tool for fighting wrong headed copyright reforms and as an extremely valuable social institution in it's own right. In fact the former is true only because the latter is! I believe PG Canada becoming a registered charity will improve both its ability to deliver its core service and its respectability when commenting on pending legislation. Your strategy of using a for profit corporation is interesting, however unless you can show significant lost income you will have a difficult uphill battle. Additionally there is no Charter right to a profit. There is however a NAFTA one. You might consider making your company an American entity. Then you would be able to sue for expropriation under the terms of NAFTA in a way that you could not as a Canadian company. But again, you'd have to show some significant lost profits. Best of luck to you. cheers, darryl Michael Lockey wrote:
Hi:
Unaware of this list, I've been doing my own private plotting, and would like to run my thoughts past you. (This comes with the standard Canadian Disclaimer about not stepping on feet, embarrassment at being egotistical enough to make suggestions, etc., etc., etc)
I've been proofreading and mentoring at DP-INT and -EU for 16 months or so, and have shared many of the fears and uncertainties about the future of Public Domain.
It is interesting and frightening to see how one (relatively) small country can unilaterally change Copyright, then cajole their 'friends' until a global result is achieved, despite the opposition of most. (I note parentherically that most of the world is Life+50.)
I have, consequently, incorporated Distributed Proofreaders of Canada as a for profit concern; I also own dp50.net. (Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.)
I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power.
Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
Where I, personally, want to be challenging is by claiming, (as our charter does), rights of use for any material- globally- that is currently in the Public Domain in Canada. (As, for example, an individual or corporation may claim mineral rights without doing any work on them for up to 15 years.)
Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto:
THE BOOK STOPS HERE
Cheers, Vasa (Michael Lockey) _______________________________________________ Project Gutenberg of Canada Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ List: pgcanada@lists.pglaf.org Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/
Darryl Moore wrote:
Your strategy of using a for profit corporation is interesting, however unless you can show significant lost income you will have a difficult uphill battle. Additionally there is no Charter right to a profit. There is however a NAFTA one. You might consider making your company an American entity. Then you would be able to sue for expropriation under the terms of NAFTA in a way that you could not as a Canadian company. But again, you'd have to show some significant lost profits.
Thank you foir an interesting and appealing strategy. With all respects to PG, I think their value added concepts (millions and millions of downloaders, infinite distribution time) are nebulous and non-enforceable. I'd rather go with their actual download list: at $1/download, 'Hand Writing on the Wall', has already generated $70K 'profit' since September. (Incidently, could I get a one-time complete list of downloads- not just the top 100?) Contrary to the idealistic approach of PG, these figures are by definition quantifiable. I think the idea of a pipe back to the States could well precipitate a NAFTA issue: we would already be in a position to argue that blocking GWTW is already NAFTA-restrainable! (Incidently, while I intend to stress adherence to national copyright regulation, the first two books I want to list are GWTW, and Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience'.) The one possible objection to this strategy would be that PG and DP-INT might consider it trespass on their grounds. I want to make it quite clear- to /anyone/ who may be monitoring these threads- that my efforts are purely commercial, even though I may chose to give away all my profit. This means that I must not trespass on the pre-existing rights of other organizations, groups to which Distributed Proofreaders of Canada has no formal links, rights, or obligations. This is one reason why DPC solicits advice and assistance from other parties that may wish to stake a claim to any properties under PD. We'll be content with our share. Once we have reached concensus on DPC's status within the overall context of handling PD, voting shares will be issued, and a proper Board of Directors voted in. Our commercial success can only be achieved through active cooperation with others, though: so please do give advice- even negative advice will be appreciated and considered. Vasa
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Michael Lockey wrote:
Hi:
Unaware of this list, I've been doing my own private plotting, and would like to run my thoughts past you. (This comes with the standard Canadian Disclaimer about not stepping on feet, embarrassment at being egotistical enough to make suggestions, etc., etc., etc)
I've been proofreading and mentoring at DP-INT and -EU for 16 months or so, and have shared many of the fears and uncertainties about the future of Public Domain.
It is interesting and frightening to see how one (relatively) small country can unilaterally change Copyright, then cajole their 'friends' until a global result is achieved, despite the opposition of most. (I note parentherically that most of the world is Life+50.)
I'm not sure you want to know the history of the current copyright extensions, but I think it goes back to the mid-60's, even before the United States was working up it's extension from 28 + 28 years to 95 years without any renewal. Not only is the current history of copyright extension longer, and also more far flung, than any of us probably realize, but it is backed by more billions and more centuries of tradition than any of us may realize either.
I have, consequently, incorporated Distributed Proofreaders of Canada as a for profit concern; I also own dp50.net. (Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.)
[Sorry, that parenthetical remark about jingoism when right over my head.]
I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power.
I have always thought that the public domain was the GREATEST CIVIL RIGHT. Yet we see that "the pen is mightier than then pen" when the leaders of country after country after country sign laws that rape and pillage the public domain rights to a million books here and a million books there. And with no mention by the major press or major media whatsoever. . . . I wonder if it is because they think their own existence is dependent on copyrights to things that were copyrighted a century ago??? I think the more likely explanation is that they simply don't want ANY competition to their wares, they want it ALL TO BE "PAY-PER." We have moved from the "PAPERLESS revolution" to the PAY-PER revolution. * They want a "piece of the action" AND "editorial control" over everything, and the governments don't resist because they get more taxes this way. Not to mention that the publishers' cartels are among the longest standing lobbiests in the history of governments. How do you think copyright got started in the first place?!?!?!
Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
Verrry interesting! However, I hope this is something that will be kept on the DP side of things and not spill over into the PG side, as I have sincere reservations about the idea of going to court in this kind of environment. It is my own opinion that Larry Lessig, et. al., have done the most harm to copyright law of anyone. . .more details on request. These cases, which were once cases with my own name on them, are being lost in a manner that sets the public domain back much further than if the cases had not been brought at all. Not only are they losing more severely than if they had made no legal arguments whatsoever, but they are insuring these cases will NOT BE HEARD IN THE NEXT CENTURY. . .and then who will remember what it was like before the public domain was sold up the river.
Where I, personally, want to be challenging is by claiming, (as our charter does), rights of use for any material- globally- that is currently in the Public Domain in Canada. (As, for example, an individual or corporation may claim mineral rights without doing any work on them for up to 15 years.)
My best wishes with that. . .just don't lose, eh? I think Lessig & Co., would have done much better if they had hired some retired jurists the same age and inclination as the US Supreme Court and tried their case several times in such "moot court" practice sessions, and then known they had to go back to the drawing boards before hurting more than helping. By the way, US lawyers get the same "credit," as it were, for appearing before the Supreme Court whether then win or lose. . . . I told them that if they wanted to go in my name, they had better be prepared for the "Super Bowl of Supreme Court Cases". . .but they not only ignored that, they ignored ALL of the briefs I spent hundreds of hours writing for them over a period of 5 months. That's why I fired them. And, INHO, why they lost by a far greater margin than if they had said nothing at all. I think they had 5-4 going in, and came out losing 7-2. . . .
Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto:
THE BOOK STOPS HERE
Love it!!! Of course, their might be something said in addition: Your support needed, or THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOK STOPS HERE. My apologies, I sorted through several ways to say that, and have not yet come up with the right one. . .any help?
Cheers, Vasa (Michael Lockey) _______________________________________________ Project Gutenberg of Canada Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ List: pgcanada@lists.pglaf.org Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/
Many thanks! Michael S. Hart
Thanks for all the early feedback. I've responded (more or less) to Mr. Hart's comments since this whole gig really is his. Michael Hart wrote:
I'm not sure you want to know the history of the current copyright extensions, but I think it goes back to the mid-60's, even before the United States was working up it's extension from 28 + 28 years to 95 years without any renewal.
My limited understanding is that it's every time 'Steamboat Willy' is about to enter PD that we realize the 'need' to protect Copyright.
(Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.)
[Sorry, that parenthetical remark about jingoism when right over my head.]
-I don't like DP-Canada, or PG-US, or anything that smacks of nationalism. What we do is for the world, no ifs, ands, or buts. If folk approve of my aims, I MUST fight here in Canada, and on the grounds that this is Canadian, since that's the battleground, and hence the company name: but even so, the site will be DP50, because that's what the fight's ABOUT. I love DP-EU, and am trying to do my bit towards making it a success. But it's going to be a lot harder to fight the EU, which is already supra-national. Here in Canada, we can fight these constraints at the NATIONAL level, not only for us, but for the rest of the Life+50 world. The other sides have established 'precidents' to justify their behaviour: we MUST do the same, and this locale is our best shot at it.
I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power.
I have always thought that the public domain was the GREATEST CIVIL RIGHT.
Yet we see that "the pen is mightier than then pen" when the leaders of country after country after country sign laws that rape and pillage the public domain rights to a million books here and a million books there.
Bingo. So let's fight. Another issue that seems important to me is that PD has no RESPECT. Again, using the evil rat's empire as an example: they feel at liberty to not only USE but ABUSE PD. Aside from their not repecting Copyright themselves (reluctant to pay for The Lion Sleeps Tonight), I'm upset by their immoral use of PD material. Hercules, with Hera as his mother, when she was his worst enemy? (Remember- it may be dead now, but we are talking of a religion, even if it is now extinct.) Pocahantas? Turning a particularly vicious piece of history on it's head: rather like some fascist writing a movie about Saint Hitler and his missionary work among the Jews. Winnie-the-Pooh, a Canadian symbol, that can't be used without the rodent's permission? I could go on, but why bother? The simple fact is that those who would deny us our heritage, are those who feel the greatest 'right' to steal and pervert the little we have saved. This in turn raises an issue I've been trying to get my head around- we need to identify the stakeholders in all this. Owners of Copyright and Defenders of the Public Domain are obvious: but what about the works themselves? Who speaks for them? Copyright NEVER 'protects' the work. In a Darwinian sense, the works are best preserved through dissemination, which Copyright actively seeks to inhibit. Though the ostensible fight is over GWTW, the true victims are the millions of booksw doomed to extinction because the Copyright owner has no monetary interest in republication. This, again, may provide fertile ground for a counterattack. Laws on Copyright were established to protect Copyright holders, true. But these are not Criminal, but Civil Laws, and based on a Quid Pro Quo. In exchange for legal protection, which imposed a hard cost to society (administration and enforcement), the public received a benefit- PD. This is a Contract, to which both sides must adhere. They want to chage the rules? -Fine; though I don't agree. But to change them retroactively is to break the contract: had I money enough, I'd fight on the grounds that Copyright no longer exists, and that all works are now PD. Can't do that, of course: but again, and fighting on THEIR grounds, I would argue that, since there is no intent to fulfil their side of the bargain, Copyright should be paid for, in recompense for the costs associated with enforcing it. I hold patents, and have to pay through the nose for them. I own my house; and must pay my title fees to protect my interests. I see no difference with Copyright. (And NOT after the work has established a market value: that's 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' reasoning.)
And with no mention by the major press or major media whatsoever. . . .
Well, try reading Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' to figure out that little conundrum...
I wonder if it is because they think their own existence is dependent on copyrights to things that were copyrighted a century ago???
I think the more likely explanation is that they simply don't want ANY competition to their wares, they want it ALL TO BE "PAY-PER."
We have moved from the "PAPERLESS revolution" to the PAY-PER revolution.
Greed, plain and simple. I note someone else using the term I've stuck by for years: it's the closing of the electronic commons.
Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
It is my own opinion that Larry Lessig, et. al., have done the most harm to copyright law of anyone. . .more details on request.
These cases, which were once cases with my own name on them, are being lost in a manner that sets the public domain back much further than if the cases had not been brought at all.
Yes please; more details. If we must fight, lets not make mistakes.
By the way, US lawyers get the same "credit," as it were, for appearing before the Supreme Court whether then win or lose. . . .
Not, mercifully, true in Canada where, I also think, the courts are more likely to be sympathetic anyway, what with the various 'fair use' decisions.
Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto:
THE BOOK STOPS HERE
Love it!!!
Of course, their might be something said in addition:
Your support needed, or THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOK STOPS HERE.
My apologies, I sorted through several ways to say that, and have not yet come up with the right one. . .any help?
A slogan should be terse, which is why I like my version- but I'm most assuredly open to change. I was fighting alone simply because I WAS fighting alone. If there's others in this, great. I am most willing to turn over all my assets in this to anyone else, and will totally withdraw from any executive position if there is any suggestion that my ego or personal interests are involved. But I really do think we must fight; fight hard, fight without mercy, and fight to win. Perhaps we could have a face-to-face here in TO (other places, too!) to try and refine our goals and strategies. And, once more, the Canadian disclaimer (maybe we should boilerplate it?) Michael Lockey (Vasa) PS: Ultimate Canadian Joke: 'I'm sorry I don't have anything to apologize for Today.'
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Michael Lockey wrote:
Thanks for all the early feedback. I've responded (more or less) to Mr. Hart's comments since this whole gig really is his.
Well. . . .
Michael Hart wrote:
I'm not sure you want to know the history of the current copyright extensions, but I think it goes back to the mid-60's, even before the United States was working up it's extension from 28 + 28 years to 95 years without any renewal.
My limited understanding is that it's every time 'Steamboat Willy' is about to enter PD that we realize the 'need' to protect Copyright.
As per your comments about slogans below: How about: THE PUBLIC DOMAIN STOPS HERE! and then a picture of Mickey Rat or just a generic mouse trap. . . . BTW. . .why no more Mighty Mouse?
(Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.)
[Sorry, that parenthetical remark about jingoism when right over my head.]
-I don't like DP-Canada, or PG-US, or anything that smacks of nationalism. What we do is for the world, no ifs, ands, or buts. If folk approve of my aims, I MUST fight here in Canada, and on the grounds that this is Canadian, since that's the battleground, and hence the company name: but even so, the site will be DP50, because that's what the fight's ABOUT.
That's why I'm going on both directions at full Steamboat Bill speed. National and regional PGs for the preservation of certain cultures, PG Consortia Centers for each of the various copyright terms.
I love DP-EU, and am trying to do my bit towards making it a success. But it's going to be a lot harder to fight the EU, which is already
Yes, and the EU seems to be going more conservative, right out of the gate. The EMP who invited me to speak at the EU Parliament was already defeated.
supra-national. Here in Canada, we can fight these constraints at the NATIONAL level, not only for us, but for the rest of the Life+50 world. The other sides have established 'precidents' to justify their behaviour: we MUST do the same, and this locale is our best shot at it.
Let's face it, the copyright cartels are pretty much global in concern, not just multi-national. . . . In fact, _I_ don't see ANY way to fight them other than to take the Gandhi approach that wiped out the British Empire. . .it's that big a thing, and at least as important. . . . I don't think the courts will EVER make more than the SLIGHTEST token decisions on behalf of the public domain, nor will the lawmakers, nor will the executive branch. . .after all, the last two US extensions were signed by Democrat Presidents. . . .
I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power.
I have always thought that the public domain was the GREATEST CIVIL RIGHT.
Hmmm. . .no comment there?!?
Yet we see that "the pen is mightier than then pen" when the leaders of country after country after country sign laws that rape and pillage the public domain rights to a million books here and a million books there.
Bingo. So let's fight. Another issue that seems important to me is that PD has no RESPECT. Again, using the evil rat's empire as an example: they feel at liberty to not only USE but ABUSE PD. Aside from their not repecting Copyright themselves (reluctant to pay for The Lion Sleeps Tonight), I'm
Totally agree, not to mention Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Alexandre Dumas [and the trademarking of "Hunchback of Notre Dame. . .plastic model that was already in existence for decades before the Disney movie.]
upset by their immoral use of PD material. Hercules, with Hera as his mother, when she was his worst enemy? (Remember- it may be dead now, but we are talking of a religion, even if it is now extinct.) Pocahantas? Turning
History is written by the victors. . .as in the history of copyright, which no one knows. . .or pays attention to.
a particularly vicious piece of history on it's head: rather like some fascist writing a movie about Saint Hitler and his missionary work among the Jews. Winnie-the-Pooh, a Canadian symbol, that can't be used without the rodent's permission? I could go on, but why bother? The simple fact is that those who would deny us our heritage, are those who feel the greatest 'right' to steal and pervert the little we have saved.
Mickey Rodent? Protected by satire laws?
This in turn raises an issue I've been trying to get my head around- we need to identify the stakeholders in all this. Owners of Copyright and Defenders of the Public Domain are obvious: but what about the works themselves? Who speaks for them? Copyright NEVER 'protects' the work. In a Darwinian sense, the works are best preserved through dissemination, which Copyright actively seeks to inhibit. Though the ostensible fight is over GWTW, the true victims are the millions of booksw doomed to extinction because the Copyright owner has no monetary interest in republication.
For each book these new laws "protects". . .there are a thousand it dooms to not being read. A million books have been taken out of public domain circulation by the new copyright extension. . .more than ANY book burning effort. . .ever! !!!
This, again, may provide fertile ground for a counterattack. Laws on Copyright were established to protect Copyright holders, true. But these are not Criminal, but Civil Laws, and based on a Quid Pro Quo. In exchange for legal protection, which imposed a hard cost to society (administration and enforcement), the public received a benefit- PD. This is a Contract, to which both sides must adhere. They want to chage the rules? -Fine; though I don't agree. But to change them retroactively is to break the contract: had I money enough, I'd fight on the grounds that Copyright no longer exists, and
You can still do it on a philosophical basis. . .a la Gandhi, Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King. . .etc.
that all works are now PD. Can't do that, of course: but again, and fighting on THEIR grounds, I would argue that, since there is no intent to fulfil their side of the bargain, Copyright should be paid for, in recompense for the costs associated with enforcing it. I hold patents, and have to pay through the nose for them. I own my house; and must pay my title fees to protect my interests. I see no difference with Copyright. (And NOT after the work has established a market value: that's 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' reasoning.)
This is the difference when laws are written by the people they are supposed to control. . . . "He who has the gold, rules!" "Greed Is Good!" "Ignorance is Strength!" "Freedom Is Slavery!" "War Is Peace" "War Is Profitable!" "War makes people forget how bad things are at home." "Victory Gin!"
And with no mention by the major press or major media whatsoever. . . .
Well, try reading Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' to figure out that little conundrum...
I'd LOVE to hear something about that. . .I could never read Chomsky, sorry.
I wonder if it is because they think their own existence is dependent on copyrights to things that were copyrighted a century ago???
I think the more likely explanation is that they simply don't want ANY competition to their wares, they want it ALL TO BE "PAY-PER."
We have moved from the "PAPERLESS revolution" to the PAY-PER revolution.
Greed, plain and simple. I note someone else using the term I've stuck by for years: it's the closing of the electronic commons.
Every time a "media commons" has developed, it's been voided by copyright!!! Think about that for a moment. . .the ONLY reason copyright ever becomes an issue is when the rich are NOT the only ones who can copy everything!
Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
It is my own opinion that Larry Lessig, et. al., have done the most harm to copyright law of anyone. . .more details on request.
These cases, which were once cases with my own name on them, are being lost in a manner that sets the public domain back much further than if the cases had not been brought at all.
Yes please; more details. If we must fight, lets not make mistakes.
Ooof! Not a subject near and dear to my heart, but I will continue to give details.
By the way, US lawyers get the same "credit," as it were, for appearing before the Supreme Court whether then win or lose. . . .
Not, mercifully, true in Canada where, I also think, the courts are more likely to be sympathetic anyway, what with the various 'fair use' decisions.
That's what .au said three years ago. . .hee hee! No offense meant. . .just meaning it's going to be TOUGH when an armada of lobbyists disembarks in Canada wearing suits, etc., that cost more than the average monthly pay check. . .perhaps more than two months. More than three months, if you count computers, etc.
Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto:
THE BOOK STOPS HERE
Love it!!!
THE DEATH OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN STOPS HERE!
Of course, their might be something said in addition:
Your support needed, or THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOK STOPS HERE.
My apologies, I sorted through several ways to say that, and have not yet come up with the right one. . .any help?
A slogan should be terse, which is why I like my version- but I'm most assuredly open to change. I was fighting alone simply because I WAS fighting alone. If there's others in this, great. I am most willing to turn over all my assets in this to anyone else, and will totally withdraw from any executive position if there is any suggestion that my ego or personal interests are involved.
But I really do think we must fight; fight hard, fight without mercy, and fight to win.
THE REAL PIRATES ARE THOSE WHO STOLE OUR PUBLIC DOMAIN MICKEY PIRATE
Perhaps we could have a face-to-face here in TO (other places, too!) to try and refine our goals and strategies. And, once more, the Canadian disclaimer (maybe we should boilerplate it?)
Hee hee. . .we haven't even had that conference call yet. . . .!
Michael Lockey (Vasa)
PS: Ultimate Canadian Joke: 'I'm sorry I don't have anything to apologize for Today.'
Sounds like what Bush said about never making mistakes. . . .
participants (3)
-
Darryl Moore -
Michael Hart -
Michael Lockey